[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3630-H3643]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
[...]
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in House Report 112-88.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to speak in favor of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1068. FREEZE IN BUDGET OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNTIL
UNQUALIFIED AUDIT OPINIONS ACHIEVED.
(a) Freeze.--
(1) In general.--Unless and until the requirement specified
in paragraph (2) is met for the entire Department of Defense,
except as provided in subsection (b), the aggregate
[[Page H3640]]
amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made available for
military functions administered by the Department of Defense
(other than the functions excluded by subsection (c)) for a
fiscal year may not exceed--
(A) in the case of fiscal year 2012, the aggregate amount
of funds appropriated or otherwise made available for
military functions administered by the Department of Defense
(other than the functions excluded by subsection (b)) for
fiscal year 2011; and
(B) in each fiscal year after fiscal year 2012, the
aggregate amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for such functions for the previous fiscal year.
(2) Requirement for unqualified audit opinion.--The
requirement of this paragraph is that the Department of
Defense (including every major Pentagon component and every
major defense acquisition program of the Department) is
certified by the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense or an independent public accountant as achieving an
unqualified audit opinion.
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to a component or program of the Department if the
President certifies that applying the subsection to that
component or program would harm national security or members
of the Armed Forces who are in combat.
(c) Exclusion of Overseas Contingency Operations and
Military Personnel Pay and Benefits.--In determining the
aggregate amount of funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for military functions administered by the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 or any subsequent
fiscal year for purposes of subsection (a), there shall be
excluded all amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available--
(1) in any supplemental appropriations Act; or
(2) in any general appropriations Acts for--
(A) overseas contingency operations;
(B) military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense,
generally title I of the annual Department of Defense
appropriations Act; and
(C) wounded warrior programs of the Department of Defense.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
For those who are interested in fiscal responsibility, this amendment
would freeze Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able
to pass an audit--able to pass an audit. This freeze could be waived by
the President if it would harm our national security. And my amendment
excludes spending for Wounded Warriors and defense personnel accounts
as well as for overseas contingency operations.
Though defense spending currently accounts for over 20 percent of our
Federal budget, DOD remains one of the few Federal agencies unable to
pass an independent audit. This leaves the Pentagon vulnerable to
serious waste and fraud. A recent GAO review of selected major weapons
systems found that $70 billion had been lost through waste, mainly due
to ``poor management and execution problems.'' Tens of billions more
have been paid to fraudulent contractors.
I remember back in 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted
that he could not account for $2.3 trillion in Pentagon expenditures.
For over two decades, the Pentagon has been under obligation to face an
audit, and currently it must be auditable by September 2017. But recent
status reports have raised serious concerns that this goal will not be
met.
Waste and fraud in the Pentagon have serious consequences, both for
our fiscal stability and our national security. My amendment provides a
real incentive for the Pentagon finally to pass an audit. It is
irresponsible to continue what Secretary Gates has called the gusher of
defense spending without ensuring that we know where taxpayer dollars
are going.
I believe this is a commonsense idea. It is also a bipartisan one. My
amendment is very similar to a proposal that Senator Coburn made to the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on which I also
served last year. It is a constitutional requirement that ``a regular
statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public
money shall be published from time to time.'' Well, these are very
difficult financial times, and we're faced with difficult choices and
the prospect of cutting critical government programs. This accounting
of funds has become more important than ever, including the Pentagon.
I yield 1 minute of my remaining time to the gentlewoman from
California, Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this very commonsense
amendment. And I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Jan
Schakowsky, who has been such a strong leader on sensible and serious
deficit reduction efforts.
This amendment is very similar to an amendment that I submitted to
Rules. And I want to thank Congresswoman Schakowsky for continuing to
move this forward, because it is just extremely important that the
financial statements of the Defense Department be audited.
Where are our defense dollars going? We have no idea. Sadly, the
Department of Defense Inspector General and the GAO have documented
time and time again the Department's inability to answer this very
basic question. Some of my colleagues may make the argument the
Department of Defense is making so much progress on this issue in
response to congressional engagement requiring the records to be
audited by September 2017, but this is too late. Billions of dollars
are going out of the door each month.
The American people deserve to know where our defense dollars are
going. There can be no more blank checks and certainly no blank
checkbook to be handed over to any President.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for this very commonsense
amendment.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to applaud the
gentleladies for the amendment they have brought forward because they
have hit a true problem with the Department of Defense. There is a
statute requiring that the Department of Defense audit their financial
records, and they have failed do that. They didn't do it in 2007,
didn't do it in 2008, didn't do it in 2009, didn't do it in 2010. They
are not going to do it this year. But this is part of a bigger problem.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have got to do for the
national defense of this country, first of all, is determine what the
true threat assessment is without having budgetary influences. The
independent panel that reviewed our QDR has said that they are very,
very concerned that our QDR, our defense strategies, are dictated more
by the budget than they are by risk assessments. And I am proud of the
fact that the chairman and the ranking member have fought very hard to
make sure in this bill they have moved us in that direction.
Secondly, we've got to determine the true cost of defending the
country based on those risk assessments. And thirdly, we've got to
determine what the risks are if we don't do it. And the fourth thing,
as the gentlelady mentioned, we've got to know where our money is
going, and right now we do not know that. But the unfortunate thing is
this bill is just a bridge too far. It is a risky situation to begin
cutting all of the funding from many of these operations and we are not
cutting the missions.
While I agree with the gentlelady's concern and think we need to work
towards it, I am proud of the work that we have done in this committee
this year to move that forward. I can assure the gentlelady we are
going to continue to work to hold DOD's feet to the fire and to make
sure they're accountable for the dollars they spend. The American
taxpayers deserve that.
But I hope we will reject this amendment because our men and women in
uniform and the people of the United States also deserve to make sure
we're doing everything possible to defend and protect this country, and
I'm afraid this amendment would put that defense in jeopardy. For that
reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1940
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, since we agree, that
the
[[Page H3641]]
problem is that the Pentagon has never explained where its money is
going, and because there are waivers within this, that anything
declared in need of national defense, and we certainly take care of our
troops, will be excluded from the legislation, that it is time,
finally. It's not just the last year, the year before, the year before
that. It's been about 20 years before the Pentagon itself has explained
where all the money goes.
And being such a huge part of our budget, it seems like now would be
a good time, particularly because there are so many open doors left in
this so that our national security and our troops are in no way
jeopardized by my bill. I would really appreciate all of us being able
to work together to make sure that the taxpayers know where this huge
amount of money is going. The time is long overdue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady makes a good point, it is
past time this happened, but this is a very risky thing to do.
One of the things, these waivers are limited. The second thing is,
it's very difficult for the President to come in and make sure he is
making all the appropriate waivers. This could jeopardize monies that
we are spending for training, money that we are spending for modeling
and simulation to forecast risk assessments that may hit the United
States and where they hit the United States.
I think we need to be very, very careful before we come in with a
sledge hammer and begin hitting all of this funding across the board,
that we make sure that we recognize we have a problem. But the key for
us, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure we are very, very deliberate and very
careful about how we address that problem.
I think we have done it in this bill. I think we have done it in a
bipartisan manner. It was 60-1 in the bill, and I think, Mr. Chairman,
I hope that we will reject this avenue because I don't think we can
afford to just go in and carte blanche cut off all the funding, as much
as I may wish we could do that. I think it's dangerous for the American
people and for the defense of the country. I hope, once again, we will
defeat the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. May I ask how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Vote ``yes.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
The amendment was rejected.
[...]